Appeal No. 96-0511
Application 08/158,837
The sequential addressing of the rows means that the data
pattern is not simultaneously transferred from column to
another, as the examiner contends (Answer at 11). Therefore,
even assuming it would have been prima facie obvious to modify
Tanigawa's memory device somehow to employ Childers' column-
to-column data pattern transfer technique to shift a data
pattern from a row in one of memories 10a and 10b to a row in
the other memory, the resulting data transfer would not occur
simultaneously, as required by claim 23 and the other
independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 24, 32, 52, and
53). Furthermore, a prima facie case for obviousness has not
been established with respect to any of the appealed claims,
because the examiner has not adequately explain why one
skilled in the art would have been motivated to replace
Tanigawa's writing technique, which does not involve
transferring test data between memory cells or groups of
memory cells (either simultaneously or sequentially), with
Childers' technique of sequentially transferring test data
between memory cells (column to column). Nor has the examiner
adequately explained how Tanigawa's memory device is to be
modified to employ Childers' transfer technique, as is
- 14 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007